*** The CFB Playoff Misc bullsh#t Thread ***

[RedDenver]

17 minutes ago, gossamorharpy said:

Make the playoffs 8 teams with conf champs and the next 3 best in so some of these teams actually have to beat other top notch teams to win it all.

I've been proposing 8 teams with the P5 conference champs as automatic qualifiers, the top ranked G5 conference champ as an automatic qualifier, then two open spots with the caveat that if independent teams are in the final top 8 ranking, they get those spots. Reduces the teams the committee (or however the final ranking is done) to only picking one of the G5 champs and the two open slots. Then let the committee decide the brackets given the 8 teams - could be 1 vs 8, 2 vs 7, etc., or set it up to reduce rematches or whatever.

[Savage Husker]

13 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

I've been proposing 8 teams with the P5 conference champs as automatic qualifiers, the top ranked G5 conference champ as an automatic qualifier, then two open spots with the caveat that if independent teams are in the final top 8 ranking, they get those spots. Reduces the teams the committee (or however the final ranking is done) to only picking one of the G5 champs and the two open slots. Then let the committee decide the brackets given the 8 teams - could be 1 vs 8, 2 vs 7, etc., or set it up to reduce rematches or whatever.

If two G5 teams are in top 10, then make it a play-in game, that would be my preference. 

[gossamorharpy]

1 hour ago, teachercd said:

I get why they tamper and I am fine with it.  I might be insane but I think the more choices a kid/adult has the better.  Does it sucks at times, sure.

 

As far as the playoff, letting only 4 teams in ruins things, it doesn't make it better.  It should be 16 teams.  

 

Each division winner from the P5 conferences (Big 12 can figure out how to create divisions).  That is 10 teams right there, the next 6 are selected by ranking.  Do away with conference champion games if you want.

 

12 regular season games.  2 teams would end up playing 16 games.  4 teams would play 15 games, 8 teams wold play 14 games and 16 teams (plus bowl teams) would play 13 games.

 

 

That would be cool too, as far as im concerned, more high impact games in december and January is a major plus.

 

The skeptics say it waters down the season as it devalues each week.  I disagree with this as well and would argue it actually expands more meaningful games for conf championships, division winners, etc that previously were meaningless because a pac 12 champ, for instance, might be ranked 10th with zero upside to play for anything else.

[funhusker]

2 hours ago, teachercd said:

I get why they tamper and I am fine with it.  I might be insane but I think the more choices a kid/adult has the better.  Does it sucks at times, sure.

 

As far as the playoff, letting only 4 teams in ruins things, it doesn't make it better.  It should be 16 teams.  

 

Each division winner from the P5 conferences (Big 12 can figure out how to create divisions).  That is 10 teams right there, the next 6 are selected by ranking.  Do away with conference champion games if you want.

 

12 regular season games.  2 teams would end up playing 16 games.  4 teams would play 15 games, 8 teams wold play 14 games and 16 teams (plus bowl teams) would play 13 games.

 

 

I say keep the conference championship games but just call it the first round of the payoffs.  The 6 “at large” teams would get seeded and could play each other during this round.

After the CCG round, teams are reseeded for an 8 team playoff.

 

 

[teachercd]

38 minutes ago, gossamorharpy said:

That would be cool too, as far as im concerned, more high impact games in december and January is a major plus.

 

The skeptics say it waters down the season as it devalues each week.  I disagree with this as well and would argue it actually expands more meaningful games for conf championships, division winners, etc that previously were meaningless because a pac 12 champ, for instance, might be ranked 10th with zero upside to play for anything else.

I mean, think how interesting/fun/cool it would be at the end of the season because most division races are close, like really close, You could likely get to Black Friday with 3-4 teams in the west all tied/within one game of each other.  It would be bananas.  

[krc1995]

6 hours ago, teachercd said:

I get why they tamper and I am fine with it.  I might be insane but I think the more choices a kid/adult has the better.  Does it sucks at times, sure.

 

As far as the playoff, letting only 4 teams in ruins things, it doesn't make it better.  It should be 16 teams.  

 

Each division winner from the P5 conferences (Big 12 can figure out how to create divisions).  That is 10 teams right there, the next 6 are selected by ranking.  Do away with conference champion games if you want.

 

12 regular season games.  2 teams would end up playing 16 games.  4 teams would play 15 games, 8 teams wold play 14 games and 16 teams (plus bowl teams) would play 13 games.

 

 

I don’t agree with the more choices the better. Sometimes you make a choice and you stick with it. And it’s not like athletes don’t have avenues to leave if unhappy.  
 

I do agree that a 4 team needs replaced  

[Cobra Kai]

18 hours ago, gossamorharpy said:

I'm not saying abolish the playoff, rather it needs to be expanded because pencilling in alabama and clemson in each year as long as they only have 1 loss is just a flawed system.  Some of these years they didnt even need to win their own division in their conference, yet somehow get a pass to be in the top 4?

It's Alabama and Clemson or vice versa...then everybody else. They get in because they are better than everyone else.  It's clear and obvious.  I am for an expanded playoff too, but to say it isn't fair or flawed because Alabama and/or Clemson get in with blemishes is kind of foolish. 

 

The playoff system as it is now is about putting the best teams on the field against one another.  There is currently no other team in FBS at their level.  If people don't like it, they need to beat them...and keep beating them until the tide turns.

 

It will happen eventually, but for now, we're stuck with two great programs and then everyone else.  I'm sure this is how people thought of Nebraska and Oklahoma or Nebraska and Miami in their hay day.

[BigRedBuster]

31 minutes ago, Cobra Kai said:

The playoff system as it is now is about putting the best teams on the field against one another.  There is currently no other team in FBS at their level.  If people don't like it, they need to beat them...and keep beating them until the tide turns.

If they don't win their division or conference, they don't deserve to be in the playoffs.  Unless the conference champion is in it also.  With only 4 team playoff, that shouldn't happen.

[Saunders]

54 minutes ago, Cobra Kai said:

It's Alabama and Clemson or vice versa...then everybody else. They get in because they are better than everyone else.  It's clear and obvious.  I am for an expanded playoff too, but to say it isn't fair or flawed because Alabama and/or Clemson get in with blemishes is kind of foolish. 

 

The playoff system as it is now is about putting the best teams on the field against one another.  There is currently no other team in FBS at their level.  If people don't like it, they need to beat them...and keep beating them until the tide turns.

 

It will happen eventually, but for now, we're stuck with two great programs and then everyone else.  I'm sure this is how people thought of Nebraska and Oklahoma or Nebraska and Miami in their hay day.

Kind of hard to do that when you don't give teams a chance. It's an artificial barrier that gives certain teams an advantage based purely on speculation. CFB is the ONLY SPORT IN THE WORLD where you can win every game you play, and not have a chance for a championship.

[Cobra Kai]

25 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

If they don't win their division or conference, they don't deserve to be in the playoffs.  Unless the conference champion is in it also.  With only 4 team playoff, that shouldn't happen.

 

Maybe it shouldn't happen, but no one has gotten into the playoffs with more than 1 loss.  And Alabama and Clemson have 5 of the last 6 national championships.  They are the best two programs in the country without argument.  

 

People hate the Yankees, hated UCLA, hated the Celtics...yada yada yada.  I  not a fan of either team, but I know what greatness is when I see it.

 

Should the FBS playoff change formats?  Absolutely.  Will it, probably.  Would Alabama and Clemson still get in?  Yep.

 

If the playoff is designed to put the best however many teams in a bracket together, Alabama and Clemson are in...until they prove otherwise.  They are the best two.  It has really never been about the best record.  It's about whos the best.  People struggle with this.

[Cobra Kai]

9 minutes ago, Saunders said:

It's an artificial barrier that gives certain teams an advantage based purely on speculation. 

It's not speculation for the last half decade.  Those two teams are just way better than everyone.  

[Guy Chamberlin]

I think the 4 team playoff has generally given us the best teams, the national champion has earned the title, and the same teams keep coming back because they're dynasties at the moment. That could change when other teams get better, and dynasties break up as they always do.  

 

In a four team playoff the arguments are about the #5 and #6 teams that deserved a shot. In an 8 team playoff we'd be arguing about the #9 and #10 teams. No way around that. But an expanded playoff to ensure Big 5 representation and a seat for the hottest upstarts would be more fun. If I remember the debate, is was that an expanded college football playoff would drag on too long and take students away from studying and finals. Can you believe that?

 

Since the NCAA has finally admitted it's in the professional football business, we can probably do away with that and have a Sweet 16 tournament every year. 

[bugeater17]

18 hours ago, teachercd said:

I get why they tamper and I am fine with it.  I might be insane but I think the more choices a kid/adult has the better.  Does it sucks at times, sure.

 

As far as the playoff, letting only 4 teams in ruins things, it doesn't make it better.  It should be 16 teams.  

 

Each division winner from the P5 conferences (Big 12 can figure out how to create divisions).  That is 10 teams right there, the next 6 are selected by ranking.  Do away with conference champion games if you want.

 

12 regular season games.  2 teams would end up playing 16 games.  4 teams would play 15 games, 8 teams wold play 14 games and 16 teams (plus bowl teams) would play 13 games.

 

 

Why not keep the conference championship and just got to an 8 team playoff, with 5 conference champions auto and 3 at large? Then the committee ranks 1-8 and sets playoff bracket. 

[BigRedBuster]

12 minutes ago, Cobra Kai said:

 

Maybe it shouldn't happen, but no one has gotten into the playoffs with more than 1 loss.  And Alabama and Clemson have 5 of the last 6 national championships.  They are the best two programs in the country without argument.  

 

People hate the Yankees, hated UCLA, hated the Celtics...yada yada yada.  I  not a fan of either team, but I know what greatness is when I see it.

 

Should the FBS playoff change formats?  Absolutely.  Will it, probably.  Would Alabama and Clemson still get in?  Yep.

 

If the playoff is designed to put the best however many teams in a bracket together, Alabama and Clemson are in...until they prove otherwise.  They are the best two.  It has really never been about the best record.  It's about whos the best.  People struggle with this.

I don't give a flying rip how many championships a program has had in the last 5 years.  If they don't win the conference or even their division, they shouldn't be in the playoffs.  Period.

[Cobra Kai]

1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

I don't give a flying rip how many championships a program has had in the last 5 years.  If they don't win the conference or even their division, they shouldn't be in the playoffs.  Period.

I respectfully disagree